Tuesday, August 30, 2011

UPDATE: 9/11 at the Pentagon: Comparing Apples to Oranges

Some say that the video below that shows the Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom jet fighter smashing into a 10 FOOT THICK, HUGE chunk of reinforced concrete, then not leaving much plane debris, since the plane basically turned into dust, proves their contention that a Boeing 757 did smash into the Pentagon during the FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB of 9/11.

Let's look at some facts and you decide:

The Phantom's length is 63 feet, the wingspan is almost 39 feet and the height at the tail, which is much taller than the cockpit, is 16 feet.

But that weight drops to 30,328 pounds when it's not geared up for combat.

Plus, the Phantom airframe used an extensive amount of titanium, which is the hardest metal known.

A Boeing 757-200 is 155 feet long, and the cockpit is about 16 feet off the ground and loaded, take-off weight around 200,000 pounds, and the wings are 124 feet in length and store the fuel, which used aluminum in it's airframe and skin.

(NOTE: Wikipedia states the length of the Boeing 757 series, and the tail height, but NOT the height of the front of the plane. Wonder why?)

In the video, the Phantom is traveling at 500 MPH while the Boeing that allegedly hit the Pentagon was traveling at 350 MPH.

The Phantom slammed into a 10 FOOT THICK SOLID chunk of concrete, while whatever hit the Pentagon went thru a total of NINE FEET of reinforced concrete, but that was spread out over nearly six walls, it wasn't solid, in-between there were window and door openings; offices; closets; hallways and stairwells.

For someone to claim that the Phantom, a fraction of the size of the Boeing and that weighed way less, and was going 150 MPH faster when it slammed into a MASSIVE chunk of concrete, it's disingenuous for someone to say that since there was hardly anything left of the Phantom, that proves their belief in the official government version of WHAT REALLY HAPPENED to the Pentagon on 9/11.

Jet airplane crash test

This is what happens when a fighter jet hits a cement wall at 500 miles per hour.

More Evidence

Now take a look at this 'punch-out hole' at the Pentagon. Notice how low it is to the ground? And how it's cut into an almost perfect circle?

Here's another picture at the Pentagon, that has an emergency services person walking in front of the punch-out hole.

(Since the Boeing 757 carries its fuel in the wings, if a 757 had impacted the Pentagon, wouldn't the fuel in those wing tanks exploded upon impact, leaving huge scorch marks on the walls?
I don't see any scorch marks that could of been caused by a plane with a 124 foot wingspan, do you?)

Here's a picture of a Boeing 757 with a man standing next to the aircraft.

After seeing these pics, can someone please explain to me how that Boeing could scrunch down to fit into the initial punch-out hole?

What "60 Minutes II" said in their story, "Miracle at the Pentagon"

It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project.

"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They've been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.

The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

Source: CBS NewsWhen someone makes a video of a Boeing 757 crashing into a Pentagon mock-up and it leaves similar damage seen on 9/11, then I'll believe that a large piece of flying aluminum was able to crash thru NINE FEET of heavily reinforced concrete.

Look at the facts, check out the pics and decide for yourself WHAT REALLY HAPPENED at the Pentagon on 9/11. If you want to believe in the official government story, I'll respect that without calling you names like a 'retard,' or saying your crazy and belong in a mental institute.

IMO, there's no way an honest comparison can be made between a F4, which is a fraction of the size of the HUGE Boeing 757, hitting a 10 FOOT thick concrete wall, leaving little debris, proves the point that a Boeing hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

The only ones who know WHAT REALLY HAPPENED to the Pentagon on 9/11 are the sick and twisted Zionists and Neocons bastards who pulled off that FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB, and they're not talking, except to fantasize and plan another FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB to restore Americans into a state of shock using terror.

Rumsfeld On Tape: Terror Attack Could Restore Neo-Con Agenda

Former Defense Secretary's conversation with military analysts on political problems - "The Correction For That...Is An Attack"

Shocking excerpts of confidential recordings recently released under the Freedom of Information Act feature former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking with top military analysts about how a flagging Neo-Con political agenda could be successfully restored with the aid of another terrorist attack on America.

The most extraordinary exchange takes place when Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans shrinking political support for Neo-Con war plans on Capitol Hill and suggests that sympathy for the Bush administration's agenda will only be achieved after a new terror attack.

Rumsfeld agrees that the psychological impact of 9/11 is wearing off and the "behavior pattern" of citizens in both the U.S. and Europe suggests that they are unconcerned about the threat of terror.

A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer, who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

BLU-109 2000lb "Bunker Buster" Bomb

The BLU-109/B is a hardened penetration bomb used by United States & Israeli military aircraft. (BLU is an acronym for Bomb Live Unit.) It is intended to smash through concrete shelters and other hardened structures before exploding.

This Youtube link has plenty of videos of 'bunker-busting' bombs and missiles penetrating reinforced concrete.

4 comments:

Every aspect of this "attack" is suspect... almost to a point of being comical. Seriously, in most areas of investigation of virtually any other crime known to man, arrests would have been made and trials already long ago complete.

If the Pentagon were indeed attacked by a 757, pretty much everyone in a potentially vulnerable spot in the Pentagon would be exonerated from being in on the plot. But I think the evidence is clear that that specific area of the Pentagon was pinpointed as the target, and it was destroyed in a very controlled, surgical way. As I recall, it was mostly empty as a result of "renovation" -- but it did house some very important auditing information ... as in, what happened to the 2.3 trillion dollars Rumsfeld said was unaccounted for on Sept. 10?

what happened to the 2.3 trillion dollars Rumsfeld said was unaccounted for on Sept. 10?

Several years back, I read an article in PDF format that said in the initial investigation that led to the auditors being at that location on 9/11 had actually shown it was closer to FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS missing, but since they had run out of money and allocated time, and had only officially documented 2.3 trillion, that's the figure that was released.

virtually any other crime known to man, arrests would have been made and trials already long ago complete

Lucky for them they didn't get caught with some marijuana, or else they'd be in REAL trouble.

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information.
Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.